With all the recent acts of terrorism from the Islamic world, one of the big questions is are individual acts ones of religious extremism or political motivation (or both).

One such example is 9/11. Now while I'm inclined to believe that the men who hijacked the plane did so for religious reasons, I'm not fully convinced that the heads of the operation (mainly Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban) were motivated by means other than political power.

What do you think? Which acts of terrorism do you think were driven by religious extremism and which were driven by political means? Which do you think were a combination of both?

(04-05-2013 04:03 PM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote: With all the recent acts of terrorism from the Islamic world, one of the big questions is are individual acts ones of religious extremism or political motivation (or both).

One such example is 9/11. Now while I'm inclined to believe that the men who hijacked the plane did so for religious reasons, I'm not fully convinced that the heads of the operation (mainly Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban) were motivated by means other than political power.

What do you think? Which acts of terrorism do you think were driven by religious extremism and which were driven by political means? Which do you think were a combination of both?

Religion is regarded by the ignorant as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca.

It is hard to say how much Bin Laden actually believed of his own bullshit. But they did recruit people who were extremely religious and used their fundamental beliefs as a trigger for following their instructions. What He claimed however is he wanted a return to the Caliphate. His ultimate goal was to spread his new Caliphate (with himself as the leader) across the entire globe and for Islam to conquer all the infidels yada yada blah blah death to america ect...

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote: America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense

So the Stanley Cup playoffs are on. My beloved Habs have tied their series with the Senators. Heal up Eller!

So I have to ask myself. Do the Habs go out every night and play hockey and block shots and sacrifice their bodies for the Montreal Canadiens, or do they do it in order to win the Stanley Cup?

That's the thing. People ONLY ever fight to achieve an objective. Religion isn't an objective. Protecting religion isn't an objective. You can't DO either of those things. No military commander in recorded history has said, "We are pleased to announce that our forces have successfully fought for religion. We expect to protect religion by this time tomorrow."

The Habs are fighting for a trophy. GSP fights for the belt. The USMC fought to conquer Baghdad. The Canadians took Vimy Ridge. Napolean honestly thought that he's win at Waterloo.

9/11 wasn't an end. It was a means to an end. It was, as Rev points out, a single engagement in Oblahblah bin Blahblah's quest to conquer the world.

Religion, in all of this, is nothing more than a team jersey. PK Subban blocks shots for the Habs because that's his team. Soon to be Rookie of the year Brendan Galllagher scores goals on other teams because he's not on those teams, he's a Hab.

Hamas, the IRA, the Shining Path, the Tamil Tigers, Abu Sayyaf, all have concrete military objectives. They fight to achieve those objectives. How they recruit people is a separate issue.

As far as, "yeah, but they hate other people and attack other people that are not of their religion," well, yeah. That's what teams do. All teams exercise power and through the exercising of that power, attempt to extend their control and influence. When other teams control resources or have influence and can exercise power in a manner that is detrimental you your team, you attack them. Again, the objective isn't religion or protecting religion. The objective is undermining the enemy. That is something that can be pursued. Killing them, destroying supply lines, isolating them from allies, the list goes on.

There is no such thing as protecting an ideology. There is only undermining others that can exercise power against you.

You can, however, protect a thing. A building, a plot of land, the Alamo. These are things that can be taken in a literal sense. Those are the only things your team can actively defend. Which, in large part, is what MOST Islamic terrorist groups are defending; their lands and their resources.

(05-05-2013 06:47 AM)Ghost Wrote: That's the thing. People ONLY ever fight to achieve an objective. Religion isn't an objective. Protecting religion isn't an objective. You can't DO either of those things.

That's not even slightly true. Revenant gave us one of the religious goals of Bin Laden - a Caliphate. Bringing about a Caliphate is "an objective" or "something you DO". Converting and proselytizing are also "things you do" and "objectives". Why are you fighting to protect religion from fair criticism?

But we don't have to guess at Bin Laden's motives. He stated them. He saw the Americans as murderers and as a nation that had interfered with matters that had little to do with them (such as our support for Israel). He was upset with our constant occupation of Saudi Arabia. So did he have religious motives? Perhaps. He did, after all, issue his fatwa to Muslims, not just to Arab states, which made it a "Muslim issue" even if he had non-religious motives to begin with.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.

Starcrash Wrote:Why are you fighting to protect religion from fair criticism?

Why are you LYING?

I did no such thing.

Read my post next time before you respond.

I did. Now I've re-read it and I still see an attempt to protect Islam from criticism. You called it a "team jersey" and a "means to an end" rather than a motive. I argued why it could be a motive, and it looks like you've sidestepped my argument to personally attack me by calling me a liar. Point out a specific lie in my post or stop wasting my time.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.

(05-05-2013 06:47 AM)Ghost Wrote: That's the thing. People ONLY ever fight to achieve an objective. Religion isn't an objective. Protecting religion isn't an objective. You can't DO either of those things. No military commander in recorded history has said, "We are pleased to announce that our forces have successfully fought for religion. We expect to protect religion by this time tomorrow."

There is no such thing as protecting an ideology. There is only undermining others that can exercise power against you.

The thousands of innocents killed during the Crusades would beg to differ with you sir.

Here's an open question to anyone in this forum that has served in the armed forces, any rank, any branch, any country. Have you ever been tasked with protecting an idea?

An objective is something measurable that you can achieve. "Religion" is neither measurable nor achievable. "Protecting an idea" is neither measurable nor achievable.

Flying a plane into a building is.
Forcing an army to withdraw from your territory is.
Killing people is.
Knocking out an electrical grid is.
Assassinating someone is.
Raising/stealing/counterfeiting ten million dollars is.
Destroying the USS Cole is.
Striking civilian centres with ground to ground missiles is.
Maiming any Irishman that is discovered collaborating with the British is.
Massacring a different ethnic, religious, or racial group is.
Disrupting a supply line by destroying a rail bridge is.

The people who fought the Crusades would not object because they had CLEAR military objectives. The people that died did so as a direct result of the pursuit of those objectives.

Now look at this quote again. "There is no such thing as protecting an ideology. There is only undermining others that can exercise power against you."

Undermining others can take many forms. But what's important is that those forms are ACTIONABLE. Protecting an ideology is NOT actionable.

I live in Quebec. The French nationalist movement has said, "We want to protect French," for decades. But when you look at the list of things they have DONE, bill 101, bill 14, legislation restricting English education, the list goes on, they have not ONCE "protected French". They have ONLY ever UNDERMINED the English population.

Do you understand a bit better the distinction I am making?

Quote:Now while I'm inclined to believe that the men who hijacked the plane did so for religious reasons, I'm not fully convinced that the heads of the operation (mainly Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban) were motivated by means other than political power.

ALL human systems exercise power. Anyone who tells you otherwise has no fucking clue what they're talking about. Doctor's Without Borders, UNICEF, the Shriners, SAG, the Boy Scouts, all exercise power. Power only exists in the context of it being exercised. The exercising of power has a single purpose, to achieve an objective.

Religious extremism isn't an objective. Conquering the world and making it into a global Caliphate is.

Hey, Starcrash.

You libelously accused me of something (and it needs to be pointed out that this is NOT the first time you have done so). I called you a liar. You've got some fucking stones to say that I attacked you. Some big fucking stones.

You saw what you wanted to see, not what I wrote.

Quote:You called it a "team jersey" and a "means to an end" rather than a motive.

Do you always speak from authority when you don't understand what someone wrote? I know you didn't understand what I wrote because if you did, you wouldn't have written this sentence. That sentence shows, categorically, that you don't have a clue what I said. Not a fucking clue. How about, and call me crazy, you ask questions about something you don't understand instead of making slanderous pronouncements?